Indented are SCA rules which would cause me to hesitate classifying it as you have as a martial art

9. Prolonged overt contact of a fighter's person (hands/feet/limbs/body/head) to an opponent's person is prohibited. Brief incidental contact is expected and acceptable during engagement. 12. Grasping an opponent's person, shield, weapon's striking surface, or bow/crossbow is prohibited. 11. Intentionally tripping an opponent is prohibited. 2. The blade of an opponent’s weapon may not be grasped at any time, nor may it be trapped in contact with the fighter’s body as a means of preventing the opponent’s use of the weapon. Armored hands may grasp the haft of an opponent’s weapon.

Banned grappling? Big problem there, if someone’s in grappling range the correct thing to do is more often than not to grapple.Form historical documentation we can see this was often done with the cross guard, the pommel, the buckler (or in this case shield).

If you are not controlling range and your opponent closes on you this should eventuate in a grapple.If people are banned from grappling then the necessity of controlling range is removed and incorrect techniques will creep in as people take advantage of the rule system.

This falls outside the agreed definition as false technique will mean that the person is no longer required to defend themselves during their attack etc.

This rings alarm bells, I’m not saying I dont see it’s purpose for safety reason but I feel safety should rely on technique and safety equipment.

Removing target zones instantly makes it a sport, perhaps a martial sport but the training itself should be designed around no limitations to target zones because in a real situation this would be taken advantage of.

For instance Arms, wrists, hands etc become open when someone doesn’t cover themselves during their attack and are open game otherwise you are teaching bad habits as the person will continue to exploit the rule system by using techniques that should be easily dealt with.

Again this allows them to attack in manor which would otherwise be unsafe if the rule system was not protecting them, which I assume you will agree goes outside our definition.

B. When judging the effect of blows, all fighters are presumed to be fully armored.

In which case most “blows” should not count at all, see historical documentation on Harness fighting.

3. An effective blow to the arm above the wrist will disable the arm. The arm shall then be considered useless to the fighter and may not be used for either offense or defense. 4. An effective blow to the leg above the knee will disable the leg. The fighter must then fight kneeling, sitting, or standing on the foot of the uninjured leg. Kingdoms may place limitations upon the mobility of such injured fighters. 5. If a wounded limb blocks an otherwise acceptable blow, the blow shall be counted as though the limb were not there.

Surely you must see a problem here.....insert monty python reference here.....

F. Sometimes a blow that would normally be accepted occurs at almost the same moment as an event that would cause the fight to be stopped (a “HOLD” being called, the fighter throwing the blow being killed, etc.). If the blow was begun before the occurrence of the event that would cause the bout to be halted, it shall be deemed a legal blow and acceptable, if of sufficient force. If the blow was begun after the occurrence of the event that would cause the bout to be halted, it shall be deemed not legal and need not be accepted.

This is where we enter the realm of modern fencing, a martial system should never be first to hit because this removes the need to cover lines and protect yourself during and even after the strike.

One thing we insist on with our training is that even after a strike has connected you must be able to withdraw safely or continue with another technique covering the line i.e a draw cut, plunge cut etc.

So again the major issue in most these rules is that the remove the necessity to attack or defend ones-self "safely" with the weapon as the rule system gives a bubble of protection where false techniques will grow and multiply.

I hope this does not come off as offensive as I'm not trying to "attack" the sca system or its rules, I'm simply explaining why I differentiate it from W.M.A and H.E.M.A and wouldnt class it as the study or practice of a martial art.

OK, there are a few misconceptions here. Please allow me to clear them up, while also giving a couple of opinions:

The sort of grappling technique that is banned is the kind where you are grabbing your opponent's body with your hands or limbs. MAnipulating your opponent's body with yoru weapon is permitted, within limits. You may press your polearm against their forearm, for instance, preventing them from swinging their sword. Ther is a technique that invlves sweepiong a polearm under an armpit to move your opponent out of the way while you step around him to hit him on the head. Sticking your greatsword between his legs so he stumbles and falls it right out, though.

Many times fights come corps-a-corps. This can be seena lot in greatsword fights. It is frequently the ands pushing against each other as the opponents attempt to push or lever each other in such a position that would leave them open for a blow.

A very valid and accepted technique of fighting against a polearm when using a shield is to play "sticky hands," keeping your shield into contact with your opponent's weapon. This frequently involves direct contact with your shield against your opponent's hands. A was of deal with that, if you have the polearm, is to shift the pressure from your hands to your elbow or shoulder so you have a different point of leverage and different options of technique.

Range is very, very important in SCA combat. books could be written in the options, techniques, and effectiveness of being in different ranges. Just the variety of weapons forms that face each other, from dagger to 9-ft. spear, should give you an idea of how important range is. Sometimes you can hit a person better from farther out, while hte other person is better at hitting from closer in, and sometimes you are very good at fighting corps-a-corps. As I said, books can be written about the range game in the SCA.

Any fighting competition of any style that is legally allowed in most of the Civilized World has limitations on techniques. Even in the earliest days of the UFC eye-gouging was not allowed. Boxing has illegal target areas. Judo tournaments don't allow striking at all. But I made this point back around page 10 or 20 or so.

It does say in corpora (the defining documents of the SCA) that the SCA is not attempting to recreate an actual medieval battle. The implication is that it is trying to create something more like a tournament. There is precedent for medieval tournaments to not allow grappling (again, I gave the historical reference somewhere around page 20, I think). The SCA is trying to create an idealized medieval society which, by extension, has an elite warrior class with a "knightly" code of behavior. This means that we don't want to hurt our friends. It also means that we wish to showcase our skill with weapons, not our ability to hurt each other. While many people's mileage may vary on this point, and the rules have undergone many changes and always are changing as new technologies in weapons and armor are developed, new techniques are discovered, and people get injured, these rules are for a sport of weapons combat, as much as boxing is about punching and BJJ is about takedowns and submission.

The armor that fighters are assumed to be wearing is an iron helmet and chain mail shirt, regardless of the armor the fighter is actually wearing. Can a sword disable someone's arm through chain mail? Yes. Can a sword cut through an iron helmet to kill someone? Maybe. Can a sword daze someone wearing an iron helmet such that they would be unable to defend themselves for enough time for someone else to kill them? Maybe. Here's an iron helmet. Put it on and let me try. And most certainly some of the other weapons we use (polarms, greatswords, maces, spears) would be able cut/smash/pierce chain mail and iron just fine, thank you.

I again would apply the SCA's injury rules to the same category as the legal target area rules. Are boxing, judo, muay thai, etc. less of martial arts because the sports in which they are practiced have rules that are "unrealistic" for "actual" combat, and the fighters who do well in those sports are the ones who have learned best how to use those rules? If so, there you are, HAND.

I'm not sure I follow you when you say that a martial system should never be "never be first to hit because this removes the need to cover lines and protect yourself during and even after the strike." Do you mean the first to try to hit? And how does this apply to the rule quoted?

First-hit-kill rules do not limit one's need to train for defense, if anything, I would think it trains for greater defense. If you are dead after the first heat, I would try to avoid that first hit as much as possible, and train to get in the first hit without getting hit back.

In any event, the rule you quoted basically says that if you could not prevent the other person from hitting you while you were hitting them, you are dead too. Maybe it's an attitude/philosophy thing, but I see this as encouraging defense.

Neither was the sca heavy system, what martial conflict was it designed for?

Painbak, you fell into the trap. Around page 35 or so, someone said that the reason they would not call SCA combat a martial art was because it was not a sport that was adapted from an actual combat activity. There were no warriors trained in medieval armored combat at the time, it was folks trying to figure out how to fight like knights of the middle ages.

Personally I think that is protesting a bit much. The fact that there was no one around doing it for real does not take away from the dedication, intensity, and focus of those that have been doing it in the SCA. The table tennis analogy is a joke, frankly, and I will take it as such.

SCA combat is an attempt to recreate the conditions of medieval tournament armored combat, a sport that was based on the arts of war at the time. That the modern ruleset creates conditions that do not perfectly match or allow for conditions that could potentially have existed on the battlefield in pre-17th century Europe (or in the streets today, for that matter), does not, in my opinion, exclude its most dedicated practitioners from the ranks of the world's most dedicated martial artists. Nor should the sport, and the forms built to compete in it, be ignored or denigrated by the world of martial arts on those grounds alone.

Neither was the sca heavy system, what martial conflict was it designed for?

Riot Control. what do you think it was designed for?

Can I pick up a club, pool cue or some other fashionable weapon and smash someone face in? Yup. Can I avoid getting blasted by someone long enough to move away to a safe distance? yup. Guess it applies to most bar fights.

Can I pick up a club, pool cue or some other fashionable weapon and smash someone face in? Yup. Can I avoid getting blasted by someone long enough to move away to a safe distance? yup. Guess it applies to most bar fights.

Do you think that is all it takes to make something a martial art, because it sounds more like brawling which I've always seen labeled as either "instinctive" or "un-educated" combat.

Do you think that is all it takes to make something a martial art, because it sounds more like brawling which I've always seen labeled as either "instinctive" or "un-educated" combat.

As a matter of fact, until recently there was a unit of riot police, in Canada, I think, who did train with the SCA in riot tactics. I don't have time to look it up, but I'll bet there are pictures out there.

As for the rest of the statement, I would like to echo It Is Fake's statement. There are plenty of videos on YouTube showing technique training . Go back about 15 pages or so and you will find an exhaustive list of them. Codified systems within SCA ruleset. Done.